.3 




"tilM=« , LV:r JLI 



A^CX'V'V^ 






\s's'a 




Class. 
Book. 






.^- 



7/^//- 



ADDRESS 






TO. TIIS PEOPLE 



eF 



^T, iimi^si^*^^ F^finif^m. 



Br The Hon. WILLIAM ELLIOTT, 



(illARLF.SToy, S. G. 

1833. 



^ "x 



\ 



E 3 Si ^< 
•3 . 



*i i' 3 3 fc 






Ji^lJL^ 



Fellow Citizens. — Your refusal at the late public meeting 
to postpone the resolutions then offered, until they who were op- 
posed to them, could procure the oflicial docunients necessary to 
explain and enforce the grounds of their opposition, denied them 
virtually the right of discussion. The most common-place reso- 
lutions introduced in our Legislative assemblies, having been read 
for general information, are postponed to a future day, that mem- 
bers may be prepared for their discussion : but you have passed 
upon the most important resolutions that have ever been submit- 
ted to'you, since the adoption of the Constitution, resolutions of 
the most solemn import, that may irreversibly affect the fate of our 
government — -of republican institutions — ^of ourselves — of posteri- 
ty — with a precipitancy incompatible with a full and thorough un- 
derstanding of their character and consequences. You had pre- 
judged the question ; you had come there not to deliberate, but to 
record your settled opinions — and I forbore to press my objections 
because I cleaily perceived that they would be held obtrusive, 
Nevertheless the relation in which 1 stand to you niakes it proper 
that you should know them. I have not the vanity to think 
that they can shake your fixed determinations; but I scorn to with- 
hold them (believing them to be just) because they may be wn- 
popular. I appeal then from these your decisions — adopted in 
moments of excitement, and from ex parte representations — I ap- 
peal from these decisions prompted by your passions, to the nobler 
convictions of yovu' reason. I appeal from the spirit of party — to 
the higher and holier principle of Patriotism— and may God incline 
your hearts to pursue the right. 

We all of us hold a Tariff of protection in equal detesta- 
tion — we differ as to the remedy. We likewise agree in this, that 
however it may conform to the letter — it violates the spirit of the 
Constitution ; but we differ most widely as to the degree of injury 
which this system inflicts upon the South. When I consider the 
gross exaggerations of the Press, and the fevei of excitement into 
which it lashes the public mnd, I cannot be surprised at your ea- 
gerness to adopt any meusiue, that professes to be a remedy. You 



feel that your former prosperity has departed — that your ao-riciiUure 
languishes — that the debts coiiiracted in more fortunate times hang 
oppressively upon you, and baffle all your elTorts for their extin- 
guishment. In the mean time thousands and thousands of acres of 
"virgin soil of unequalled fertilily have been opened in the West, to 
the culture of cotton — yon have been rivalled in your peculiar sta- 
ple — and money — the medium in which your debts aie to be paid, 
has appreciated from thirty to fifty per cent throughout the world; 
yet you arc taught to ascribe all your suflerings to the Tariff ! 
Bo very obvious and indisputable has this oppression become — so 
completely has it been brought home to you — that you are as per- 
suaded as if you saw it — that the manufacturer actually, invades 
your bains, and plunders you of 40, out of every 100 bales thai, 
you produce. 

The doctrine I have last alluded to — that, as producers, you 
lose foriy out of every hundred bales by the operation of the Tariff, 
originates with a man of distinguished talents w^io supports all 
his opinions with wonderful force of reasoning, and fertility of 
illustraiion. But no talents, however distinguished, can sanctify 
error, and I propose to expose to you the fallacy of this argument ; 
t.he more readih', because many of you have confessed that yoU 
give it implicit credit. The theory is based on the ad*mitted 
principle of political economy, " that the imports of a country are 
purchased by the exports, and' one year with another w^ill 
balance ^ach other-" It next assumes that the products of the 
coimtr)'^ with which these imports are purchased, are chiefly 
grown by the Southern planters ; that an average duty of 40 per 
cent, being levied on the foreign articles for which these Southern 
products are exchanged, is in fact equivalent to a like tax on the 
products themselves ; that it is of little consequence, whether the 
duty be levied on the raw material which purchases, or the 
foreign product w^hich is purchased — that it amounts substantially 
to xhc same thing to the Southern producer who is thus taxed 40 
bales out of every lun^.dred that he produces. 

This theory would be imdoubtediy true if the planter con- 
sumed all the foreign articles purchased with the raw materials 
that he produced ; but its inherent defect consists in this — that it 
ascribes to the planter, a continuity of interest in the property after 
he has sold it : it unhappily forgets that when he has sold it, and 
been paid for if, it is no longer his but (mothers. The burthen, 
or strictly speaking, the liability to burthen, is transferred with the 
property ; and passes from purchaser to purchaser, until it is dis- 
tributed throughout the covnitry and finally settles on the consu- 
mer. Were it true that the planter pays for all — then every 
Lawyer, Physician, Merchant, Mechanic — not a planter — would 
consume all foreign commodities dutyfree — and where would be 
il}eir oppression under the Tariff? Yet were I to say to any hpn- 



5 

est mechanic who, having earned liia money hy his daily lafcor, 
had paid it away for a coat with the duty charged as an item of its 
price, "Sir, you did not pay that duty — you mistake the matter — 
you are under a delusion — I the planter made you a present of the. 
whole amount of duties charged on i(," would he not he incensed 
at such a bold attempt to impose on his understanding 1 Yet 'the 
40 baies theory supposes this absurdity ! 

What is the common sense question 1 If the planter ships 
his whole crop to Liverpool, converts the proceeds into foreign 
merchandise, imports and consumes the whole, then, and in that 
case only, he pays the 40 per cent — loses his 40 bales. But what 
•planter does this 1 not one ! if, as often happens, he invests a tenth 
or twentieth of his crop in foreign manufactm^es — on that tenth or 
twentieth, as the case may be, he paj's his 40 per cent, but on the 
reiiiainder of his shipment, he pays nothing. With this remainder . 
he may pay a foreign debt, support his son in a foreign educa- 
tion, or pinchase a bill of exchange, by which his money is remit- 
ted home -without paying one cent of duty. But the Planter does 
not visually ship : he sells in his own -markets — is paid for his 
hundred and not for sixty bales — at a price regulated by the price 
at Liverpool — and let us mark the significant fact — that price 
has never been influenced one cent by the American Tariff!! 
Who purchases the cotton 1 The merchant — and henceforth the 
risks and habilities are his, not the planter's. We will suppose it 
to be the Northern merchant ; he freights his ship with his cot- 
tons, exchanges them for foreign goods fit for the Norths* n mar- 
ket, and enters them at a Northern poit. The duty charged at the 
Custom House is added to the cost of the imported article, and is 
merged in its market price. If the article cannot sell, the burthen 
of tiie duty falls on the merchant : if it can, it falls on him who 
buys, and thus the burthen is distributed among all the people of 
the North who consume the articles on which the duties are 
charged. Now the merchant hnows that he pays the duty at the 
Custom House — do we pay it likewise 1 Is it twice paid-1 Now 
though you and I, fellow citizens,. may*have grown the identi^-al 
cottons with which these'foreign goods were purchased, it is clear 
that we did not pay the duties, because I liave shown they were 
paid by another. No more does the South, as producers, pay the 
duties on all the articl^.s purchased with her products, but on such 
portion of them only as she herself consumes. Our cotton is the 
%nere medium of exchange, and in performing this function, is no 
, more taxed tlian a Mexican dollar would be. It is bought and 
remitted to Europe in preference to specie, or a bill of exchange, 
because one will freight a ship, which the other will not. 

I have now shown you, that this duty, which it is assumed,falls 
imavoidably on the planter, may be evadad by a bill of exchange, 
or by a remittance in specie; it can likewise be avoicled in whole or 



in part by tlie importation of foreign commodities which are Jwiy 
free. Is it not degrading tlie pianier to a cond;iion of mere idi( cy, 
to suppose that he wiU voluntarily charge himself with a burthen 
that lie so easily may avoid 1 He need not pay it unless he desnes 
it — if he desires it, let him be indulged. And now, fellow-citizens, 
Jet me ask you, whether you are still convinced, that tx^s producers,}' o\\ 
bear ali the burthens of government 1 If so, then should 1 congrat- 
ulate you — then since 1828, you have been relieved of ten millions 
of taxes — then should you rejoice at the removal of such an enor- 
mous burthen fiom your peculiar industry ! But you do not re- 
joice — you are not conscious of thi.s very decided relief ! and why % 
for the best possible reason — because you never sustained the en-, 
tire burthen. You bore but a portion of the burthen, and Jiave 
only a share in the relief 1 invite your scrutiny. If the argu- 
ment I have just advanced be founded in error, let the error be ex- 
posed ; but if there be no error, yield me your assent to the infer- 
ences that must necessarily follow — that you are not burthened 
as producers — but consumers — that these burthens being there- 
fore, to a certain extent, voluntary, are to the same extent avoid- 
able — that they fall not heavier on us, than on the other agricul- 
tural States, whose products are not the basis of foreign exchanges 
—that if it be not disgraceful in them to deliberate on their condi- 
tio, it is not disgraceful in us — (hat there is nothing, in fine, so 
deplorable m our situation, or excessive in our sufferings, as to for- 
bid us to examine the tendency of such measures, as are offered to 
us as remedies ! It is a calm, manly, and unprejudiced examina- 
tion that I claim at your hands. It is due to the noble institutions 
you enjoy ; it is due to the sacrifices of those who bequeathed 
thenr to you. But if, despising my counsel, you abandon yourselves 
to the guidance of a blind and furious party zeal, as surely as you 
live, you will one day repent it. The stoim of excitement will 
pass away — objects will lio longer be viewed through a false and 
disfiguring medium — your true position will be understood— you 
will remember my friendly caution, and look back with regret. 
But will you look back from the same point 1 Will you then, 
as now, be free to choose your course 1 When you have 
struck forward the ball of revolution, can you prescribe its path, 
and regulate its motion? When your voice has shaken and 
loosened the impending avalanche, can your voice arrest it? 
France ! Poland ! plead for me ! Remove the glistening veil that 
conceals the ghastly features of Civil War ! Lay bare your gash- 
ed and bleeding bosoms ! Breathe into the ear of this too excited 
people, a tythe of the untold withering horrors that you have wit- 
nesseil and bid them pause ! Admonish them, at least, to under- 
stand the true extent of their injuries — and the true character of 
their remedy — before they fling themselves recklessly forward in- 
to the vortex of revolution ! 



It is fit we should review the ground we occupied in ISSs^ 
and admit, that ui many of our anticipations of nijuiy we have 
been deceived. We feared that England would refuse to take onr 
coitons — she has not refused. We teared that she would re;aliate 
our tax on her manufactures by a tax on our raw materials — she 
has not retaliated, for her own sake — it would have enabled her 
rivals to undersell her. Presuming her inability to sell, we pre- 
sumed a like inability to buy from us. We estimate aright nei- 
ther the extent, nor the flexibility of her commercial resources. 
While Congress dammed out her commodities in one directiv^n, 
they flowed in upon us in another, and we found, by experience, 
that in the face of a system deemed piohibitory, she returned us 
the full amount of the products, which she still cont nued to pur- 
chase of us without stint, (more circuitously indeed, and therefore 
at some slight mutual loss, but she did make the return.) We 
feared that the revenue wouid fail — that the public debt would be 
fastened immoveably upon us, and that direct taxation would be 
superadded to our other burtliens! Again we were wrong: the 
revenue increased beyond the wants of government, and tlie great 
difficulty has been to reduce it. What then, am 1 a TarilT ma a? 
No, fellow-citizens — I scorn and detest the system — but I condemn 
it for what it is, and not for what experience tells me it is not! 
There are cases, I admit, in which the duty would fall heavily on 
the producer. If the use of all cotton manufactures, domestic and 
foreign, were prohibited in the United States — while the 250,000 
bales now manufactured at home, where transferred to the Liver- 
pool market — ihe relations between supply and consumption 
wouid be so materially changed, as to produce a sensible fall in 
the price of the raw material, which we, as producers, would feel, 
in common with the producers all over the globe. Or, if England 
had been in condition to retaliate on us, we might have been tax- 
ed out of her markets, and again we should have suffered as pro- 
ducers. But the first of these suppositioais is a political impossi- 
bility — and the injury involved in the second, it has been our good 
fortune to escape. The peculiar oppression then of the South con- 
sists in this — -that she is essentially and necessarily agricultural, 
and that the bounties ^ven to maiuifacturing industry, in which 
she cannot participate, are given at her expense — not as a producer 
—•the burthen that she suffers as such, is too unimportant to be 
taken into the estimate — but as a consumer is she wronged: and 
though the North is likewise a consumer, and pays on the foreign 
fabrics she consumes, she gains a profit on all the like commodities 
that are taxed out. This profit does not equal the full amoun\ of 
duties cha,Yged at the Custom House ; the difference between the 
protective duty and the revenue duty, is its precise measure. This 
Sitm, char o-ed upon all (be pnUected domestic goods, whch hove 
gone to displace tlie like foreign articles, is the measure of the- 



burthen imposed by the manufacturer on the country at large : 
and a like sum, levied upon the like commodities that enter into 
the consumption of the South, is the measure of the burthen im- 
posed upon the South. I shall not presume to estimate the amount 
of this burthen — the materials for such a calculation are wanting- 
— l)ut be it great or be it small the burthen is uncompensated and 
destructive of that equality which should exist fyuong the States. 

Is this burthen reduced under the present bill 1 How un- 
sound must be the condition of public sentiment when honorable 
men dill'er, not onl}^ in their opinions, but find it impossible to 
agree even in their facts ! This act bears to my mind, even on its 
face, the evidence of a decided reduction. Yet both of our Sena- 
tors and six of our Representatives have told us in their Address, 
"That the burthens of the protective duties are decidedly increase 
ed." Now, in the absence of an official estimate from the Trea- 
suiy department, of the actual amount of reduction, (on which, 
whe)i it arrives, we are forwarned by our immediate representative 
in Congress, no reliance whatever is to be placed,) we must resort 
to the act itself. And here we shall see convincing proofs, that 
the protecting system has lost ground, and that we are decidedly 
gainers Ijy the new bill — first and principally in the abolition of 
the minimum duties on v.'oolSens, &c. — secondly, in the diminu- 
tion of the actual rate of the duties on negro cloth, iron, sugar, 
and cotton bagging. 

We have now received the expected document, and as for the 
honor of republican government, I cannot believe that our func- 
tionaries would issue an intentionally deceptive statement, I shall 
adopt it and rely on it till it is falsified. It appears then, that on 
tlie following articles these deductions have been made 
* Woollens, . 554,589 

Cottons, 360,280 

Iron, - 384,739 

Sugar, , 392,883 



1,592,491 

Some allowance must be made for cash duties, and the valuatioa 
of the pound sterling at ^4 80 on the onef hand, and for the abo- 
lition of the ten per cent., now added, on the other.- These allow- 
ances nearly balance one another, and the difierence will reduce 
the above to something less than one million and a half. This does 
not embrace the reduction on hemp, on unprepared wool, and on 
other articles, including cotton bagging, on which last mentioned 
article the reduction is 30 per cent. In addition to this — there is the 
reduction made by the Act of 1S30, on the protected articles of salt 
and molasses, amounting to |J.051,121, all of which is so much ta- 
ken from the Act of 1828, and a positive decrease of the protecting 
system. And this repeal of nearly three millions on the articles 



*'' chiefly received in exchange for the staple proclucf ions of the 
Southern States," amounts, our members teh us, "to an aggregate 
increase of the burthens of taxation, beyond what they were in 1828 
of one million of dollars," as they believe! Your burthens increased? 
Pay nothmg on the unprotected articles — puy less on every protected 
article — pay far less on such as you especially and exclusively use, 
Und yet pay more in the aggregate ! Unmeasured assertion ! Is it 
an increase of burthen to pay 30 per cent, less on your cotton bag- 
ging — 40 per cent, less on your coarse negro blankets, and to ob- 
tain your negro cloth at a duty of one cent and three-fourths 
per yard, instead of 14, and in some cases 22 1-2 cents under the 
Tariff of 1828] The reality of the reduction on negro cloth has 
been denied. Hear the evidence of the Banner of the Constitution, 
the staunch advocate' of free trade princi43les, edited by a man 
whose skill in political economy and comprehensive knowledge of 
commercial operation is unsurpassed in our country. 

Extract — " The present duty on wooUen cloths called ph^in?, 
which constitute the chief clothing of the blacks, in the slave hol- 
ding States, if it costs not exceding 33 1-3 cents the square yard is 
13 cents per square yard: if it exceed 33 1-3 cents, tlie duty is 22 1-2 
cents per square yjjrd. The neio bill reduces all thai costs 35 cents 
and less, to 5 per centum, which can in no case exceed 1 3-4 cents 
per square yard. This is unquestionably a great reduction, and will 
be sensibly felt at the South.^^ 

But aie ice without our advantage in the removal of dutiee 
from the unprotected articles 1 I deny it. Broadly to maintain 
this assertion, is to deny, in effect, that our citizens are consumers 
of coffee and tea, as well as the people of the North; and that a sa- 
vingto us is as substantial abenefit. Will not the removal of duty 
from coffee, and the reduction on West India sugar, have an enli- 
Tening eflcct on Southern exchanges. Is there not tlie flour of Vir- 
ginia, the rice of Carolina and Georgia an i the limiber of all the 
South, to be exchangedfor these productions of West Indian indus- 
try 1 And whence comes this impulse but from the act just passed? 
Nor have we less interest in the reduction of duties on French pro- 
ductions. The low rate of 10 per cent, on silks, and G cents a 
gallon on wines, encourage in this country, the consumption of 
those articles, which will indirectly stimtdate the consumption in 
France of those Southern products for which they are exchanged, 
viz. of rice, and sea-island cotton, recently placed by treaty on the 
favored footing of a light specific duty. I ask you now, fellow^ 
citizens, whether our iDurthens have Iseen increased ? It is here 
plain that we have obtained a most substantial reduction from ihe 
oppressive Tariff of 1828, a reduction on the protected as well as fbe 
unprotected aiiicAes, and which generally estimated to extend lo 12» 
may safely be assumed to uniount to 10 millions of dollars. Ten 
2 



10 

Snillions of tlollavs ammally saved to the people ; and this "an ni- 
trease of buithens," this an additional curse! Happy for my 
country if all her curses weigh like this ! 

Is the relief sufficient 1 By no means ; it halts far short of 
that degree of concession, with which the South should be satis- 
fied. I do not ask you to abandon your detennined opposition, but 
to select and adopt such remedies as will trvdy aftbrd you the relief 
you seek. I ask )a)U not to adopt a lemedy worse than the dis- 
ease ! Aye but the principle ! (he principle is retained in the new 
act, and we arc submissionists to stop at any thing short of its im- 
mediate and total abandonment. Fellow citizens, if we are bound 
to resist the lightest presumed encroachment on our rights, we 
should have begun the struggle 16 years ago ! Have we been 
slaves and submissionists since then ! In' 1816 the principle of 
protection was distinctly introduced, it was then engrafted on our 
polity, and by the hands of Southern Statesmen. From the com- 
mencement of our government, it was j ecognized at least as an 
mcident; in 1816 it took the form of a substantive, distinctive le- 
gitimate principle. 

Hear Mr. Calhoun. "Manufactures fostered, the farmer 
will find a ready market for his surplus produce, and what is al- 
most of equal consequence a certain and cheap supply of all his 
wants." "It will beneceesary to add as sOon as possible, a system of 
internal improvements." "He firmly believed that the country is 
prepared, even to maturity for the introduction of manufactures. 
It will introduce a new era in our aifairs, in many respects highly 
advantageous, and'ought to be countenanced by the Government.^* 
*'But if manvifactures are so far established, and if the situation of 
the country is so favorable to their growth, where is the necessity 
of affording them protection 1 It is to put them beyond the reach of 
contingency r See speech of Mr. Calhoun, April 22, 1816. Here 
then were the barrierg»of the Constitution overleaped ! Here was 
the breach effected, through which the manufacturer ever since has 
entered todes}X)il the South ! In 1828, this protective system had 
reached its extreme point of injustice— from this point, the baffled 
spirit of monopoly has been compelled to recoil. In 1830 a reduc- 
tion was effected on the improtected articles. In 1852, a reduc- 
tion on the protected as well as the unprotected ! Have the man- 
ufacturers receded from choice] No, from compulsion ! Theirs is 
a blind rapacity that prevents them from seeing, that in a timely 
and liberal concesson lies their true interest. They have been 
beaten back by the agency of political causes ; and who will under- 
take to decide that these causes shall have no further influence 1 
It is true that divisiou is introduced into their ranks. At all events 
let us not forfeit the good opinion of such of oin- countrymen as 
think us right in our principles, by the unconstitutional and objec- 
tionable expedients, by whicU we seek to establish them. The 



11 

tiuest wisdom is tliat wliicli weighs well its means before it adopts 
them. 

But you have determined, fellow citizens, to adopt these dan- 
gerous expedients. You have instructed yom' delegates to call a ■ 
convention, and should that call fail, to nullify, b}^ the Legislature, 
the Tarift'law of 1832. Four years ago, we were as a band of bro- 
thers, united heart and hand in a struggle against oppression. 
This disastrous doctrine is introduced, and where are we now. 
Split iiilo bitter factions — burning with mutual jealousies — and 
treasuring up for each other that deep resentment that should have 
been directed solely against our oppressions ! The foundations of 
long established friendship have been broken up, the closest arid 
dearest human ties have been dissolved, and sons of the same hon- 
ored parents no longer clasp the hand of affection around the do- 
mestic hearth ! Such are the first fruits of this pernicious heresy ! 
by its fruits should you judge it. 

It is nearly four years, since, in an evil hour, the doctrine of 
Nullification was first submitted to the Legislatm-e. I was then 
a member. It came recommended to us as constitutional doc- 
trine, avouched by the distinguished names of Jeflerson and 
Madison. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were printed 
and distributed among the members — the genius of Mr. Cal- 
houn was exerted in the "Exposition" to apply the principles of 
these resolutions to the existing oppression, and the powerful dia- 
lectic of Harper, and the glowing eloquence of Preston, were 
employed in their defence. Animated by a just indignation against 
this nefarious scheme of plunder, I was predisposed to give to every 
measuse which purported to be a remedy, the most favorable recep- 
tion. I was predisposed to believe, that with its efficiency for exter- 
nal protection — this complex machine of our Government, contain- 
ed within itself a secret spring — which judiciously touched — se- 
cured likewise the rights of the minority, and of the States. .With 
these prepossessions, if the question had been put, on Nullifica- 
tion by the Legislature, for which that body was surely competent 
if the measure were constitutional, I might have voted for the 
measure. It was taken on convention and lost. But none of these 
prepossessions iiould long survive the test of a calm and deliberate 
examination. It appeared on reflection, that this theory of a 
Slate veto, however captivating as an abstraction, would prove 
most fallacious and pernicious too, in practic-e : that applied to 
a law for laying duties, conforming to the letter of the constitution 
(however violatory of its spirit) it could result only in violence ; 
that a State that, in such a case, shovdd assimie to apply the 
principle, must necessarily seek for redress, by a violation of the 
Constitiit ioci*~^a breach of faith towards her co-State?, and an 

jS.ee ConstjtutJon, eev.. 7 ai^d 10, Art. 1. 



12 

irtfiingcment of their rights secured to them by the compacf. Thia 
doctrine involved a furtlier diflicuhy that seemed insuperable. It 
supposed the power in the Nullifying State, to coujpel the call- 
ing a convention of the State?. Is tJicre any such power found 
in the Constitution? There is not. But it is the reserved right, it is 
said, of any State to call a Convention— granted — then is it equally 
the reserved right of every State to refuse — and we end as we began. 
Time, that steady corrector of the errors of human speculation, 
has enabled me to fortify these deductions of reason by the 
authority of an illustrious name — Mr. Madison, the author of the 
Virginia '* Report," the adviser and fellow l^xborer of Jefferson — in 
the preparation of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions — has dis- 
tinctly declared that the principles of tliose resolutions, did not, and 
weic not intended to apj)ly to a law Jor laying duties : and Mr. 
Jefferson, if alive and consistent with himself, must confirm this 
decision, by .the declaration — ^Hha,i the fundamental defect of th-5 
confederation was that it gave to every State Legislature — a »ie^- 
ative on every act of Congress " — an opposition irreconcileably at 
variance with the doctrine of a veto. 

You have been told that Nullification is a peaceful and con- 
stitutional remedy. As iuck it has been recommended to you : as 
«Mc/i you have embraced it. I admonish you — with no unfriendly 
voice — ^that it is not what it seems! You have been told that you 
have only to nullify, to gain instant relief from your oppressions ; 
"the Juries would do the rest." Fellow citizens — it is not so. — 
You have but plunged into greater difficulties ! You see in that 
single act commerce emancipated — Charleston a free port — pro- 
perty appreciated — agriculture rejoicing — while visions of long 
lost prosperity fill your imaginations, and lure you to the execu- 
tion ! Fatal delusion ! Your Free Port would be blockaded — your 
agriculture depressed — your property depreciated — your capital 
seeking elsewhere a safer investiiient — yovu- burthens under the Ta- 
riff aggravated — and your hands reeking perhaps with the deadly 
stains of civil war ! The Constitution declares that Congress 
shall have power to lay duties, ^c. provided such duties shall be uni-' 
form; and that no advantages shall be given to the ports of one 
Sf ate over those of another. By that single act, .you violate the 
Constitution — destro)'^ the revenue' — and invade the rights of the 
co-States. You reclaim, without the consent of the other parties 
to the compact, the powers which you delegated to Congress ; but 
for every dollar of the duties that you remit at Charleston, except 
you ha\e first seceded in due fonn, depend upon it, you make res- 
titution. Be the State in the Union, or out of it — be it peace or 
war — eventually you must restore it, were it a million ! But such a 
free trade system could not long endure. It would destroy 'he 
revenue. The President who signed the law, is bound b} oa h to 
see it eji;ecuted; and, however disposed to be iadulgeot, Copgress^ 



18 

tlie co-States, will compel him to perform his duty. The law must 
be enforced, or swift ruin would overtake them. When this ruiu 
is brought home to them, will they stop to inquire whether it lias 
been aifected through the intervention of Juries ? Will tlicy care I 
They will feel that they must act, or be involved in utter destruc- 
tion — and they will act. What merchant would send his ship to any 
other sea-port, when he would save 20 or 30,000 dollars on a for- 
eign cargo by sending his ship to Charleston 1 The foreign com- 
merce of every other sea-port would be swept away at a blow. 
Picture to yourself the condition of New York, if suddenly stripped 
of that foreign commerce by which the great mass of her popula- 
tion subsists ; look at the thousands who would be thrown out of 
employment and consigned to want. Realize for a moment the 
indignation that would pervade all classes of her citizens — listen 
to the execrations that would fill the mouths of her starving pop- 
ulation. Picture to yourself the like exasperation felt in every 
important sea-port in the Union^ and communicated by a necessary 
sympathy to the States to which they belong, and ask yourselves 
whether they would calmly submit to so flagrant a wrong. They 
would arrest the evil — by lohalever agency — they would arrest it — 
and Charleston would be blockaded. Foreign ships would pay the 
duties off the bar, or be warned off to such ports as collected the 
duties determined on by Congress. Can you raise that blockade] 
Can you drive off the naval force thi3t will be employed to enforce 
the general will of the co-States'? You cannot. Aye, but it is 
sometimes said, England can. England the ally of South Caro- 
lina against her sister States! England will raise the blockade! 
I cannot repress my indignation at so atrocious a suggestion. 
What ! the sons of those gallant sires, who stood up manfully 
against British oppression — wading through seas of blood — endur- 
ing" imprisonment and chains! — the sons of such sires call in the 
British sword to settle quarels among themselves ! — call them in 
virtually to-recolonize us! Far from the honored tombs of their 
fathers, let the bones of such sons rest ! What right has England 
to interfere in such a dispute ? Is Carolina known at her Court 
as an independent nation] Has she sent her ministers and con- 
suls ] Has she treaties of alliance with England ] England and 
foreign nations know only the "United States," — know and re- 
spect " her stars and stripes," — they know her un(|uestionable 
right to collect her revenues, and enforce her municipal regula- 
tions, without the interference of any foreign power whatever. 
England could not interfere — but if she desired it — urged by the 
disposition to dismember the empire, whose towering fortunes 
threatened to overtop her own — what Southern man could brook 
it] Look at Portugal — high minded men of Carolina — and be- 
hold the freedom of a small State that accepts the protection of a 
great one ! Look at Portugal and accept of British protection ! 



14 

Could you, without utter insanity, submit yonr peculiar interests to 
iier direction 1 Read the debates of tlie Imperial Parhament — tho 
abolition speeches of Lord Cliancellor Brougham. Read the res- 
olutions of the Jamaica Assembly, and accept of British protec- 
tion ! You cannot. But you are told that this blockade need not 
be apprehended : that no sooner has Charleston been declared a 
free port, than other cities will throw open their ports, to enjoy 
tlieir portion of tlie liberated commerce. Fellow citizens, this ar- 
gument, which I have heard confidently urged by men of the pu- 
rest patriotism and soundest judgment, but shows us how prone 
we are to deceive ourselves ! Are those States to which the prin- 
cipal sea-ports belong, free trade States? No, they are TariffStates! 
What infatuation then, to suppose they will defeat their cherished 
policy, by flinging open their ports to foreign commerce, when 
their whole struggle is to close them ! Where then do you stand? 
You have drawn down upon yourselves the very embarrassments, 
which, if your free port system had gone into effect, you would 
have inflicted upon the other commercial States. You have di- 
vested yourselves of your foreign commerce. You must receive all 
foreign supplies, through other ports than your own, and you will 
still pay your Tariff duties, saddled with the charge of an addi- 
tional freight and commission. With these emlmrrassments thrown 
upon your exchanges, it will not be unreasonable to expect a high- 
er rate of taxation adopted within the State, to meet the extraor- 
dinary position in which she will be placed. 

I think 1 have shown you that this remedy of Nullification is 
not only dangerous but abortive. It will be for you, before you 
adopt it, to reflect, whether, by an ineffectual effort to redress your- 
selves, you will not have given greater permanency to oppression. 
What remedy then, you will naturally ask, should we adopt 1 
that, I reply, which was embodied in the resolutions we so unani- 
mously passed in 1828. " That having no longer any confidence 
in the magnanimity or justice of Congress, we should find relief 
from the oppressions of the Tariff" only in the action of Slates op- 
posed to such visurpation." This was then your opinion, then and 
now it is mine. From the unsustained effort of a single State can 
you hope for triu'uph 1 For neaily four years has there been an 
unceasing struggle to establish, within this State, the principle of 
Nullification, a struggle sustained by so much talent, character and 
zeal, as in any better cause would have ensured success. Are we 
unanimous yet ? Has any other State been converted to the doc- 
trine ? In one only of the Confederacy has the question been dis- 
tinctly made, and ihere it continues undecided. In how many years 
moving at such a rate, will you be in a condition to effect your re- 
lief? You address yourselves to the minority and ask them "why 
thev still cling to their opinions, why do they not, by withdraw- 
mg all opposition allow you to apply your remedy ?' Yet that ren^- 



15 

edy, it has been shown, will be not only inefficient but mischevioug. 
With how much greater force would the minority retort by requir- 
ing you to sacrifice your particular tenets fo the harmony of the 
South ! This is a Southern question. Nullification is not the 
creed of the Southern States. Yet it is these States only, acting' 
in unison, who are strong enough to apply the remedy. A confer- 
euce of the aggrieved States was heretofore suggested by Jefierson 
as a remedy against the incroachmentof Congress. Adopted at the 
present moment, and embodying, as such an assemblage would, 
the public sentiment of the united South, its decrees would be 
irresistible. All discordance within should be harinonized and oiu- 
external position would indicate a strengh in no other way to be 
acquired. The secession of a single State might be borne by the 
manufacturing interest with very becoming philosoph)^ The se- 
cession of the Southern States is an idea they would contemplate 
with dismay. It would leave them to exert their dextrons talen(s 
of taxation upon themselves. 

I will not dwell upon the objection so often urged against this 
Convention,that it would tend to the dissolution of the Union. The 
purpose for which it would be assembled would be a different one — 
and to suppose, because tjiey have the strength to affect such a pur- 
pose, they must of necessity so disloyally abuse it, is but a sorry 
compliment to our countrymen. 

FelJow citizens, in offering these views, I am aware that I op- 
pose myself to the strong current of your long cherished opinions, 
I can scarcely hope therefore that they will be received without 
prejudice. Should they induce you to review and reverse your 
former decisions, I shall rejoice at it. Should they not, the only 
consolation that will remain to me, will be that of having faith- 
fully and fearlessly discharged my duty. 

WM. ELLIOTT 
• Beaufort^ 22d August, 1832* 




iiss; 




